Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathew Tully

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. . Aksi_great (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Tully[edit]

Self-promotion piece written by Mathew.tully. -- RHaworth 00:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Self-promotion is not against the rules. It may be tacky, but it's not grounds for deletion. He apparently has one claim to notability as described here. He also ran as a Republican candidate in the recent election, which may or may not be worthy of comment. Frankly, I don't care one way or the other how this goes, as long as it gets a fair hearing. Denni ^talk 01:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The "National Leadership Award" linked to above appears to be part of an ongoing GOP fundraising scam[1][2]. Here's the Washington Post on this practice[3]. As for the "2006 Republican of the Year" mentioned in the article, lots of people claim this[4] - I initially thought maybe its like one person from each state but apparently not[5]. Funnily, no sign of Tully though[6]. Perhaps another classy GOP fundraising/vanity honors scam[7]. Bwithh 02:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable claim made in article for encyclopedic notability. Ran for New York State Assembly in 2006[8] but apparently lost. Bwithh 02:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I like how he shares that he is currently on disability for his injury sustained. Missvain 03:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Rever e ndG 04:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable in the slightest. --Dennisthe2 08:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough. Sr13 09:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Non notable...SkierRMH,11:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update Oh, hey, whaddayaknow, there's a wikipedia article already on the scam thing: National_Republican_Congressional_Committee Bwithh 17:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy if the creator wishes so... Otherwise, I'll go with current consensus and say delete. --Gray Porpo ise 20:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article, a being an unsuccessful candidate is not enough for notability.-- danntm ^T _C 04:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Baleet Once again, non-notable Scienceman123 talk 04:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arguably can be speedied per G11. Conflict of interest, which may be userfied as an alternative. Ohconfucius 06:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tully He does have some notable work including some precedent setting victories for federal employees. His legal work was one of the central topics of discussion in a Merit Systems Protection Board (Government) forum on new case developments and new Board procedures in Washington DC this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.115.167.205 (talk • contribs)

Comment would you care to back that up? right now, your asserts lack verifiability. Ohconfucius 04:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.